how many rules did fluffer break?

# 7- LURK MOAR.
# 21- Lie considerably and professionally.
# 22- Never admit you are a troll. Even after the job is done.
# 23- You must ALWAYS do it for the lulz.

/me cries

First off, I proudly consider myself to be a leading VO troll.

To say that you think too highly of yourself is a severe understatement, but it's all I will say.

Actually, I am quite humble and modest in my statement. I could have been honest. But even god humbled himself to walk among men as one of them. Certainly it is only befitting that I follow precedent.

ugh fluffy someone is going to have to give you troll lessons now you are being obvious. this thread is turning into a HOW TO FAIL AT TROLLING thread

this thread is turning into a HOW TO FAIL AT TROLLING thread

Indeed. The "leading troll" comment is all that is needed, and the central fail, in my opinion.

Thank you for your honest and complete answer, though, Fluffy. Here's my response:

There are other spell-checkers. Surely even Windows can help... Safari is indispensable to me as a spell-checker, and I consider myself a good speller.

I'm glad you do recognize the morons in the video to be a very poor sample of Christians, or religious people in general.

As far as reasons for posting, I think you would have spared yourself considerable embarrassment by posting it as merely something amusing. A pretentious thread title undermines any effect you may have effected by posting this, and overshadows the humor you claim was your other goal. Subtlety is your middle name, and also your first and last just in case someone didn't get the point (thank you, xkcd).

I understand where people come from considering organized religion to be absurd. There are so many, they tend to contradict each other and even themselves, and very good people are found in all of them, Christian or not. It's natural to struggle with that. I often struggle with my own religion, though I recognize my issues are with the people administering the church and not with the doctrines it teaches, which I believe completely (I appreciate the movie Angels & Demons for addressing that issue so very well). If I ever left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am certain I could be no more than a disaffected Mormon.

I agree with you 100% that "mindless adherence to any creed or belief system opens the door to mind numbingly stupid beliefs and behaviors." Don't let that belief system open the door to stupid behaviors, Fluffy. As irritating as "holier-than-thou" religious types can be, I find the anti-religious intellectual types even more closed-minded and self-righteous. Believing strongly that you are not held to a belief system is a form of denial, and the few atheists I have known personally have been some of the most devout in their beliefs and aggressive in proselyting them to "believers" such as myself.

Something I appreciate about the leaders of my church (the ones at the top specifically, and various ones more locally) is that they do encourage individual thought. Blind belief gets you nowhere. When Mitt Romney was running for President, it drove me absolutely nuts to hear so many of my very intelligent friends automatically join his camp, simply because he is a Mormon. It made me reluctant to say I was hoping he'd be the Republican candidate, for fear that people would assume I support him only because he's Mormon. I spent more time talking my friends out of supporting him for his religion (in favor of supporting him or not for his positions) than I did talking other friends into supporting him in spite of his religion. I don't see anything in any religious teaching, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever (admittedly my knowledge of non-Christian religions is a bit limited) that is contrary to the idea of forming your own opinion through prayer/meditation and experiment.

So "this is your brain on [religion]" is a poor choice of phrase. "This is your brain on blind stupidity" is better.

Oh, and I'm sure there are plenty here who would arrange a "splat" for you.... ;)

(Sorry if this posts sounds preachy, I tried specifically to not promote my religion, I know how we Mormons can be irritating that way. This was completely a reaction to the title of the post.)

this explains so much about you professor chaos

As irritating as "holier-than-thou" religious types can be, I find the anti-religious intellectual types even more closed-minded and self-righteous.

I don't know about even more, but just as is probably appropriate. I am not a big fan of preachy, organized religion, and militant atheism is just as much an organized, preachy religion as, say, mormonism.

they do encourage individual thought.

I realize this is probably a touchy subject for you, but in my (arguably more objective) experience, that is simply not the case.

Oh, ladron? That is a very vague statement. Care to elaborate?

[EDIT]: What I mean is, if your experience is "arguably more objective", make a reasonable argument as to what makes your experience more objective. You are right that "just as" probably would have been better wording than "at least as". Rather than argue with atheists, though, I usually try to understand them, because I do not understand not believing in a supreme thought directing the organization of the universe.

Sure, I'll elaborate.

I am good friends with several Mormon families. One of them left the Mormon church a few years ago after having become disillusioned with, well, the suppression of individual thought they experienced there. After leaving, they were constantly harassed by members of their old church, to the point that they had to move. This is one of several anecdotal examples of this kind of thing.

Hearing the horror stories of the cult-like operations of the Mormon church from my friends who are or have been involved in it, along with the defenses provided by my faithful Mormon friends, has provided me with sufficient information to judge your statement false.

EDIT: Upon your edit, I found myself replying to the wrong thing. Thus,

You are Mormon, I am agnostic. That in itself makes me more objective than you in matters dealing with the Mormon church.

Wow. You people take things way too seriously. On the off-topic board, too...

Interesting. I don't think your agnosticism makes you more objective by default. For one thing, you don't know my personal history with the church, whether I was born into it, converted, and if I converted, why. No one is truly objective. While I'm sure Fluffy is either furious his "troll" thread has been derailed or relieved the attention is now shifted away from his epic failure, I'm not entirely sure where to take it from here... I want to explain myself without being "preachy", because I hate that.

I can't emphasize enough (and again, Angels & Demons stated this very well applied to the Catholic church), there is an important distinction between the people of a church and what it teaches. Assuming for argument's sake that there is a god and he is perfect, people are still imperfect, and make mistakes. Having been born into the church, I've struggled myself with the idea of conforming to the "Mormon" norm. Lots of Mormons do, and it doesn't help that the LDS church receives so much public attention. It's difficult when someone you meet finds out you're LDS, and suddenly that's how they look at you; you really have to decide whether you truly believe what the church teaches, or if all the scrutiny and the labels aren't worth the trouble.

Being in a Mormon community like Utah isn't any better, because the "Mormon" culture runs rampant and can get out of hand. It's a lot like in the New Testament when Jesus got after the Jews for forgetting the purpose of the Law of Moses (to point to Christ for salvation) and instead looked to the Law to save them. For example, in the Old Testament when it forbids the practice of boiling a calf in its mother's milk, it is a reference to a pagan fertility ritual. The purpose was to turn the people away from pagan practices and toward the true God (I'm taking this in context, hence the assumption that that is in fact the true God). That was interpreted later by the people to mean meat and dairy had to be kept separate, and eventually we get to the point that it takes approval from the government there to open a McDonalds for tourists. The original commandment was sound, but the people strayed from it. This is the case for the whole Law of Moses, and Jesus came along and said basically "Think, people, there's a reason for this stuff, don't just go along blindly!" (In fact, aside from the immediate benefits of restoring literal sight, the healing of the blind was a symbol for healing spiritual blindness by making people think for themselves.) If you follow blindly, your faith means nothing. If you decide on your faith on your own, it means everything, and everyone will be judged (I believe) on how well they follow what they personally believe.

I went with the flow for awhile, and resented it. I had a couple friends fall away, and I heard how my other friends talked about them in such disappointed tones, and I was afraid to let them know how much I struggled with the church. I served a two-year mission mostly because I didn't want to be "that guy that didn't serve a mission" everywhere I went. I came home, moved out and got a job, and stopped going to church for a few years. I still have to force myself to attend church, and tell myself that if everyone was perfect, we wouldn't need to be reminded of our beliefs so often, and I'm less perfect than most of them.

Basically, I wonder who is more objective about the LDS church, one who has only observed it through a biased lens, seeing the failures of individuals and projecting them onto the religion, or one who was raised in the church, questioned it to the point of nearly leaving, and is now trying to rebuild real faith not based on the faith of others? I don't have an answer to that question, I am only pointing out that it is not so clear cut as you say.

Wow, these posts have gotten long and ponderous....

My point can be summed up as follows, for those to impatient to read that whole thing:

"This is your brain on [religion]" is a stupid statement, because there are good people and idiots both, original thinkers and followers both, in every single religion, and also among agnostics and atheists and those who choose to believe in God yet reject organized religion as a construct of man.

I'm going to respectfully disagree Professor to much of what you said.

The majority of my misspellings are caught- say 99%. Those few that aren't I typically correct if editing is available. I will admit to making a few intentional misspells such as the word 'innocent' when referring to myself. Frankly if I miss one or two, I could care less. I'm generally more concerned about using the wrong spelling for the word I intend and conveying the wrong meaning.

As far as my 'epic fail', it was intentional. It gave Pey and landron an opportunity to make some witty remarks at my expense which I personally thought were funny. I also thought it would take the piss out of what I had to say. Besides, I'd already made what I thought was an amusing admission in a post to Whistler. Its not like my trolling is secretz.

After the progression of the discussion thus far, I am inclined to stick with my original title (only spelled correctly). Why do I persist in being an ass you may ask? Well, for one, it gives the potential viewer an idea of what to expect. Two, it has shock value. Yes even in this desensitized and godless age. Third, I consider 'religion' or 'religious' to be derogatory terms. Most faiths are elitist organizations who consider themselves to be the chosen or closest to the 'truth'. A Catholic typically would classify themselves as such, as a Muslim would classify themselves by their faction leanings. I could have used 'This is your brain on fundamentalist Christianity', but the reaction would have been 'well duh'. Using religion encompasses all groups which I believe are subject to the tendency to accept without thinking.

I would never refer to someone of a spiritual belief that I respect as being 'religious'.

Many of the most generous and kind people I know are practicing Christians. Some Mennonite, Catholic, and some who keep their particular beliefs private. These are all intelligent well thought out people who contribute to society and their communities.

Perhaps 'This is your brain on religion' was indeed a stupid statement. I'm willing to grant that. However its no more ignorant than the 'This is your brain on drugs' adds from the 80's that I stole it from. Those adds disregarded both the social glue and oil effect that alcohol has in binding groups together and relaxing them enough to engage in activities they could not do sober. Ie. I will not dance unless I'm totally pissed drunk (which is very rare). Or the calming and soothing affects of cigarettes, or the medicinal value of pot. Or the perception altering capacity of LSD. Or the stimulants students and truck drivers take to stay alert. Its message was legitimate however in that using unprescribed drugs tends to be detrimental to many individuals.

Edit: The above is a response to your post to me. I did not have time to read your and landron's exchanges at the time. To me, religion is what one is born into and/ or accepts without reasonable doubt. Belonging to a specific church or faith or ideology happens when a person has struggled with inner doubt and weighed the relevant arguments and come to the conclusion that they believe X. My belief system is based simply on what I perceive to be the best explanation for the world / environment I exist in. Also, there is legitimate reason for belonging to a church or faith even if one does not fully believe some or all of the doctrines. In this sense I would argue that the 'church' fosters social / business / political connections that are of value to the individual.

To sum my view up, Faith without Doubt = Religion.

uh truck drivers do meth students take adderall

Wow, Fluffy, your thinking is more skewed than that of the religious nuts you think you're better than.

As you say, there is no problem with a bit of social drinking in moderation. (Side note, it pisses me off to see other Mormons look down their noses at non-LDS people who drink alcohol or smoke. So long as their consumption doesn't endanger anyone, they haven't made the same commitment we have to avoid those things, and are therefore not breaking any promises to God, and feeling all superior is counter-productive and only pushes people away.) But can you honestly tell me that consuming so much of it that you lose your inhibitions and physically damage your brain is a good thing? If you have to be shit-faced drunk to do something, maybe that should be a big clue that you should not do that thing.

And LSD? You seriously think that's healthy? I don't even need to address this. Wow.

You may be surprised to know I am no stranger to addiction, and you would do well to do a bit of research before making a blanket statement that drugs are healthy simply because the frying eggs and smashed furniture commercials of the '80s were so ridiculous. (I hate anti-drug commercials, because I doubt a single person has decided to give up drugs because of a commercial. That is wasted money that would better have been spent on voluntary rehab programs.) "This is your brain on addiction" would be a profound statement. Studies have shown that it doesn't matter what you are addicted to, be it alcohol, cigarettes, pot, cocaine, meth, heroin, or even food, gambling, pornography, sex, or video games, the effects on the brain are remarkably similar. The pleasure centers of the brain are hijacked to equate the addictive substance/behavior with survival, making it the number one priority in that person's life, making them seek it out despite obvious and visible negative consequences in their life (loss of job, family, friends, health, etc.). At the same time, the frontal lobe, which is a balance to the pleasure centers of the brain and serves to regulate compulsive behavior with reason, physically shrinks and becomes inconsequential with regards to behavior. This was discovered when it was found that patients with head trauma (such as automotive accident victims) began to exhibit impulsive/compulsive behavior that had previously been absent and resembled the impaired judgment of addicts. The negative effects of drugs vastly outweigh any brief positive benefit. Social drinking of alcohol is fine so long as you don't let it get out of balance, but balance in such things is so difficult to find in today's society that many of us err on the side of caution and avoid alcohol entirely. As for cigarettes, I'd rather find something that doesn't ruin my voice and give me lung cancer to relax, and that isn't addictive.

Your statements are ignorant on so many levels, Fluffy.

As for "Faith without Doubt = Religion", that is also ridiculous. No, faith without doubt is knowledge. Like James says in the New Testament, the Devil knows God is God, and look where it got him? You must act on faith or it dies, and if your actions have good results you know your faith is well-placed. That is independent of religion; I know many Mormons whose faith is badly placed (as in for the wrong reasons, such as myself for most of my life) and many more non-Mormons whose faith is very well-placed (you can tell because of how hard they try to live selflessly). You can have faith without doubt and still not associate with a religion. Religion is an organized belief system. I associate with the belief system that I believe was organized directly by Jesus Christ, in spite of many of the others that practice the religion imperfectly as I do, and anyone who finds a religion that helps them to be a better person should pursue that faith diligently whatever it is.

"No, faith without doubt is knowledge."

No. That's only faith. Knowledge is always subject to doubt as parameters change, and must be tested if what was known is in opposition to new observations. Information which is not tested is faith, whether the subject is spiritual or mundane.

Hot damn. We went from Christian Side Hug to this. A true testament to the intellectualism existing within VO :-p

Chaos,

LSD is not necessarily bad for your health. Its inventor (who was Swiss, by the way, woo!) ingested large doses and became 102 years old. I'm sure Whistler knows more about its effects than I do, however.

Edit: I realize now that the above could be misunderstood. I did not mean to say that you (Whistler) might be more acquainted with LSD due to personal use, but rather because you said that you worked in a psychiatric clinic (or maybe I have got my facts wrong), and that you'd know about people who suffer from the adverse effects that sometimes occur.

Whoa! I didn't know about the aging effects!

Regarding the video: If one is such a huge perv that a frontal hug is too stimulating, I think surgery is a better solution.